You may freely use these images for academic and educational purposes, and if you fully cite this blog post as the source. This blog post may be cited as: Lew, A.A. (2017). Modeling the Resilience Adaptive Cycle. Collaborative for Sustainable Tourism and Resilient Communities Blog (21 January). Retrieved from http://www.tourismcommunities.com/blog/modeling-the-resilience-adaptive-cycle.

If you have any questions about these, feel free to send me an email using the comment box, below. - Alan Lew

The Adaptive Cycle ​​The Adaptive Cycle was one of the early resilience theory concepts that captured the imagination of may researchers. Holling (2001) introduced the Adaptive Cycle as part of his systems approach to resilience theory using a 3-dimensional diagram, with the cycle moving in a roller coaster pattern among the three key variables of resilience, potential, and connectedness (see below). I think that this was probably too complex for many people to conceptualize, and so he simplified it into a two-dimensional diagram that showed the cycle as a figure 8 (or folded infinity loop) pattern, and which should be well known to most anyone interested in resilience theory and thinking.

While visually compelling, the figure 8 pattern is still unnecessarily complicated and makes implications that need to be explained away in one way or another. I personally prefer the more simple circle diagram what was introduced by Walker and Salt (2006). I have reconfigured their diagram below, which has the advantage of showing more clearly the Fore Loop (moving from (re)organization to exploitation to consolidation) and Back Loop (moving from consolidation to collapse and again back to (re)organization). This version, below, first appeared in Lew, 2016.

Tourism researchers have often pointed out similarities to between the Holling's Adaptive Cycle and Butler's Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) model. Here I attempt to show the comparison in a diagram (based on Butler, 1980 and Holling, 2001).

In the same book chapter cited above, I try to summarize how the different phases of the Adaptive Cycle relate to the variables of Resilience, Potential and Connectedness, which were part of the 3-dimensional diagram that Holling introduced in 2001. I found the best definitions of these three variables (shown below) in Allison and Hobbs (2004).​

One of the issues that different diagrams of the Adaptive Cycle share is the misinterpretation that all systems must go through all stages of the cycle. It needs to be continually reinforced that this is not the case. Returning to the General Adaptive Cycle model diagram above, I try to show optional adaptive paths that systems could experience. These figures have not yet been designated for use in any of my articles, other than this blog post.

The first figure below shows all the likely paths that human social systems can take over time as they adapt to changing conditions. They may experience all four stages of the adaptive cycle, or they may only experience two or three of the stages. The major types that result are shown in three successive figures.​The Large and Small Cycles figure illustrates how some systems and processes move slowly through the four stages, possibly encompassing large amounts of resources and influences. These large and slow cycles are also sometime associated with slow, controlling variables. Other systems may move very quickly through the adaptive cycle stages, to the point where they may be largely imperceptible.

The Growth and Collapse Cycles figure shows how some stages may be completely avoided. A growth cycle occurs when the system anticipates vulnerabilities that may lead to collapse and plans for them by moving directly from the consolidation phase to the reorganization phase. If successful, this results in continual adaptation to changing conditions, as suggested by the ‘evolutionary resilience’ concept (Davoudi 2012). The collapse cycle is just the opposite. It is like the ‘poverty trap’ described by Allison and Hobbs (2004), in which a system is unable to effectively escape a constant state of decline. Efforts to reorganize are quickly coopted into rigid consolidation structures that collapse before a growth stage can ensue.​The final theoretical form that modeling the adaptive cycle in this way results in is a reorganizational cycle. Here the system never reaches a stage of consolidation, but is instead is continually reorganizing itself. While it does experience growth, it is not able to enjoy the fruits (or consolidate the benefits) of that growth, but immediately turns a reflexive eye toward restructuring itself. This might be an extreme version of evolutionary resilience, and while I do not have a good example, it seemed theoretically possible.

​This final set of two figures are not yet designated for publication in any articles that I have been associated with, other than this blog post. The figures show how different systems (each represented by an adaptive cycle infinity diagram) influence each other through “memory” (aka “remembering” or “path dependence”) and through “revolt” (aka “path divergence” or “path creation”). These are the only two ways that systems influence one another in resilience theory. The figures show nested systems (smaller subsystems that operate within a larger system) and parallel systems. I also place these within the framework of my Scale, Change and Resilience (SCR) model (Lew, 2014), although I am not sure if that is more confusing than helpful. :)

References Cited

Allison, H.E. and Hobbs, R.J. (2004). Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the “Lock-in Trap” of the Western Australian agricultural region. Ecology and Society 9(1): 3. Online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art3

Butler, R. (1980). The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5-12.

I have been reading Modern Buddhism, by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (2013). The central message in the first part of this book is the section titled "Training in Ultimate Bodhichitta" (starting on page 101). That chapter is about emptiness (or non-existence), which is possibly the single most difficult teaching of the Buddha for most people to grasp (including me). The chapter may be the best explanation that I have personally come across. It may be that is speaks to me because I can see connections to systems science, which is an area of interest in my day-job.

Systems

I was recently explaining to a student how important it is to clearly define the spatial and social boundaries of the systems that one is researching, because that will tell you what variables are relevant and valid to measure and what variable are not. In this student's case, there are four geographic (spatial) systems that are fairly easy to define. Three of them are small, separate islands, and the fourth is the combined group of three islands, which is administered as a single "village" government. These all exist as subsystems in a spatial hierarchy that extends to the country and the globe.

There are, of course, many alternative ways that one could divide the geography of this place, such as coastal and inland, higher and lower elevations, settled and unsettled areas, different types of landforms or vegetation, and more. Each of these is a distinct system in itself. The data variables that one collects must at at the scale of the system that is being studied. If it is not at the same scale, then it is describing a different system. In the case of my student, data that only describes one island should not be used to describe all three islands, and data that describes all three island should not be inferred as descriptive of only one of the islands. (There are ways to extrapolated data to larger and smaller scales, though this must be done with caution to maintain validity.)

In addition, there are, however, social systems that also need to be defined within the spatial systems. Examples of possible social systems that could be studied are: government, religion (maybe different kinds), businesses/livelihoods (both all and grouped into different types), residents (maybe of different social classes and ethnic or language groups), physical infrastructure (utilities and roads/paths), the NGO/civil society (which can have multiple interests), and more.

In my opinion, there are an infinite number of ways in which both spatial scale and social scale could be defined, meaning the potential systems than can be studies are infinite. How we define the best systems to study depends on the nature of the research question that is being asked (and its theoretical foundations), and the types of responses or results that the research question and methodology anticipates. In turn, the research questions and methods adopted are driven by the literature that has been consulted and established in the researcher's mind in preparing the study.

Emptiness

"The instant you speak about a thing, you miss the mark." - Wumen Huikai (Chan Buddhist Monk, 1183–1260)

Recognizing that I may miss the mark, here is how I currently understand the Buddhist concept of emptiness, based on the book Modern Buddhism. Emptiness is the essential nature of all things -- everything. What struck me is that the author explains this in a similar way as I describe what a system is. Every object that we think is real, is actually a system of component parts that only has meaning because we (individually and collectively) give it meaning. We do this because it is more convenient for our non-awakened (or 'non-enlightened', or 'gross level') awareness.

He uses a car as an example (p.105). If we try to understand exactly what part of the car is the car, we cannot do it, because the car is not found in any of its parts. Nor is it found in all of its parts piled together. It only exists as a system of parts that are connected to each other and operate together in a certain way. We "know" a car when we see it because we have been taught that when these feature come together in this configuration, then it is called a "car". This system-building process is also true for each component that goes into making a car -- each has it own name -- down to the smallest screw, which also is made up of particles, none of which is a screw in itself.

In the opposite direction, we define the car a a system that is separate from the roads, driveways, parking areas, fuel supply, brand name and image, color scheme, surrounding air molecules, owners, vehicle taxes, dead bugs on the windshield, and innumerable (infinite) other components to which it is almost always, or very often, connected. That is because we have drawn a system boundary around the "car", based on our social conventions.

This path of logic applies to everything that we see as materially existing, including the human body. They are all systems composed of finer elements that are independent systems in themselves. And they are also deeply connected to components that, within our normal conceptualizations of them, are usually considered external them. In reality, there is no car and there is no body without the mental constructs that we hold of their existence.

Another possible way of thinking about this comes from a story told by Oliver Sax in his 1995 book, An Anthropologist on Mars: Seven Paradoxical Tales. It is about a man who was blind for 50 years and whose sight was restored through an operation. Upon seeing for the first time, all he saw was a mass of colors and lights that had no organized structure. It was not until a doctor spoke that some of those colors and lights came together to form a human face. Because of his age, his brain was never able to fully conceptualize, or structure, the mass of visual information that he was now exposed to. (Apparently this story was made into a movie in 1999, titled "At First Sight".)

This story point to two things. The first is that there is definitely a real and useful evolutionary biology in us that seeks to structure the world into simpler systems than actually exist. The second is that structures do not exist in reality until we form them. While this example is related to visual reality, Buddhism says that this is true of all reality.

With this in mind, it is possible to conceive of a civilization that is equally intelligent as ours on another planet, but which constructs its reality systems in an entirely different way than we do on Earth. This would make for significant challenges in communication, as it already does on our planet between the subtle (and maybe not-so-subtle) differences that exist between different cultural (and political) groups today.

Because everything that we perceive as reality is a mental construct, there is nothing real in reality. As a friend of mine often says, "there is no there there". For Buddhism, the only thereness is emptiness (or the awareness of emptiness/non-existence) because emptiness is all that is left when the mental constructs (the systems) are taken away. As ephemeral as they may be, once we have defined a system at our gross level of awareness, we have also defined the variables that we use to test it and to understand it, just as with the systems defined for social science and physical science research, described above.

"Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth." Alan Watts (1915-1973)

Lessons

As I said above, emptiness is the essential nature of all things -- everything. In Buddhism, the awareness or experience of emptiness is the ultimate happiness and satisfaction, free of the vicissitudes of our emotions and attachments. System science has some theoretical considerations that come fairly close to that. In general systems theory, all systems are subsystems of other systems and complete independence (a closed system) does not exist (Klir, 1969. Approach to General Systems Theory). In addition, systems are in constant flux reacting to and in unison with their larger context. System boundaries, therefore, do not exist as fixed entities except in our minds, usually based on assumptions. If we did not have a preconceived idea of what the boundaries "should" look like, they would not be there. Phenomenology, as a social science research approach (as I understand it), seeks to reduce preconceptions by fully recognizing them, and then investigates social phenomenon with an openness to all possibilities and without prejudice. Emptiness, however, is not quite within the realm of system science -- except maybe quantum physics (see link below)....​

So, I am posting the original version of this to both my Buddhism blog and this Community Resilience blog. The reason I wrote this was mostly to think things through in my own mind, and I will update it from time to time, since the topic is big and an important on in both my gross-level working life and my slightly less gross life. The version on this blog site is likely to get more systems science-related updates (see below).

Rice paddy fields, Shan State, Myanmar

UPDATES

14 November 2016: "One of the most important quantum [physics] insights is that the nature of change itself changes. We are living through such a “change in change.” Worldwide connectivity in all its forms—transportation, energy, communications—is the change emerging from within the system that ultimately changes the system itself."

​18 November 2016: - Another perspective on non-existence from Modern Buddhism (page 120), which also has significance for systems building:

"If all the necessary atmospheric causes and conditions come together, clouds will appear. If these are absent, clouds cannot form. The clouds are completely dependent upon causes and conditions for their development; without these they have no power to develop. The same is true for mountains, planets, bodies, minds and all other produced phenomena. Because they depend upon factors outside themselves for their existence, they are empty of inherent, or independent, existence and are mere imputations of the mind."

22 November 2016: - So I like the Sutra part (first 1/3) of the book, Modern Buddhism (2013, available free online), which is what my discussion above is all about, However, I am not so crazy about the Tantra part (remainder) of the book, which feels too much like "religion" for my tastes. I have also been reading about the author, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, and the controversies related to his New Kadampa Tradition, which I find somewhat disturbing. You can find out more by searching online about this.

You may freely use these images for academic and educational purposes, and if you fully cite this blog post as the source. This blog post may be cited as:Lew, A.A., Ng, P.T., Wu, T-C, and Ni, C-C. (2016). Some New Resilience Figures and Diagrams. Collaborative for Sustainable Tourism and Resilient Communities Blog (30 September). Retrieved from http://www.tourismcommunities.com/blog/some-new-resilience-figures-and-diagrams.

The references cited below will be updates as they appear in print in 2017 (or later).

The figures should be self-explanatory, but if you have any questions about these, feel free to send me an email using the comment box, below. - Alan Lew

by Alan A. Lew- The ideas expressed in this blog post were developed through lengthy discussions with my research co-investigators: - Prof. Pin T. Ng, Northern Arizona University, USA - Prof. Chin-cheng (Nickel) Ni, National Hsinchu University of Education, Taiwan - Prof. Tsung-chiung (Emily) Wu, National Donghwa University, Taiwan - This commentary was originally posted on the Tourism Place blog on 24 October 2015.

I have had a continuing interest in resilience as a conceptual framework for community planning, with particular application to tourism development, since I first became familiar with the resilience literature back in 2012. With my background in urban planning (that is mostly what I teach at NAU), I was especially drawn to how planners were discussing issues of slow and evolutionary resilience. And although I only have one formal publication on resilience (Lew 2013), I do have an ongoing research project in Taiwan exploring the differences and similarities between resilience and sustainability. Some presentations based on preliminary data (subject to change) from that research can be found here.

One of the slides in my recent presentations on the topic of resilience and sustainability contains a list of the similarities and difference between the two concepts. Putting this list together has helped me tremendously, because I find that the academic literature is more confusing than helpful on this. I have come to the conclusion that there are two basic reasons why academics (and others) are confused by the relationship between resilience and sustainability.

The first reason for the confusion is the weak and sloppy conceptualization of sustainability, which can sometimes combine criteria that are resilience in origin with those that are more solidly based in sustainability theory.

There is a tendency by some to define sustainability as including every possible "good" thing under the sun that a community should strive to achieve, from carbon reduction to heritage conservation to gender equity to creating jobs to open government to religious freedom to performing arts, and more. Such a kitchen soup approach is, in my opinion, good comprehensive planning (as I learned in planning school) and might be good community development, but it does not reflect the original concept of sustainable development, as articulated in the 1987 report, Our Common Future, by the UN's World Commission on Environmental and Development (aka the Brundtland Report), which elevated "sustainable development" to worldwide importance.

Our Common Future clearly articulated a strong environmental ethic and a strong conservation approach. This also included the restoration of historical ecological systems. Although there were some proactive elements (such as creating fairness between rich and poor), the emphasis was on protecting and maintaining natural and cultural resources for the future and avoiding change, which is much more narrowly defined than comprehensive planning.

Resilience, on the other hand, has it conceptual origins in ecology and disaster management. It is about adaptation, building capacities to change, learning institutions, and creative and innovative responses to changing circumstances. [new 22nov15] It can also be confused by authors who use a more simplified dictionary definition of resilience. This happens because everything conceivable, from a river to a city and from a sound to an idea, exhibits some degree of resilience. Things exist and they end; and in simplistic terms, measurements of the time between their coming into existence and their eventual ending reflects their resilience. Thus, an researcher could say that because a religion has been in existence for over 2000 years, it is resilient. On the other hand, one could also say it is sustainable, which leads to the second reason for the confusion between sustainability and resilience. [end new]

The second reason for the confusion between resilience and sustainability is that they share some common assumptions, methods and goals. Table 1, below, summarizes what I see as the major similarities between these two frameworks. In essence, they are both seeking to ensure the survivability of human society through greater harmony with the natural world. As such, both resilience and sustainability research has tended to focus on natural ecosystems, on community development, and increasingly on climate change. These common goals and research topics makes it seem like resilience and sustainability are the same thing. They are not (IMHO).

Table 2, below, outlines the many and major differences between resilience and sustainability. The biggest difference is in the basic ontological assumptions about the nature of the world: whether it is normal to be in a state of stability and balance, or in a state of change and even chaos. To be sustainable requires that stability is possible. However, human experience seems to be telling us that we live in a chaotic world that requires resilience.

Criticism: Does Not Address the Causes of Social and Environmental Change

Creating Resilient & Sustainable Communities

My purpose is not to denigrate sustainability in favor of resilience. While I do not see much value in those approaches that poorly define sustainability, I do believe that it is a major paradigm for our time and has brought good results to the world. However, after almost 30 years, sustainability has its problems and does not seem to be an adequate framework in itself for addressing contemporary world and community challenges.

Instead, I suggest that the new paradigm for community development should be the "Resilient and Sustainable Community" -- a community that demonstrates strength in both sustainability and resilience.

Faced with the modern challenges of climate change and natural disasters, economic and cultural globalization, and numerous other unpredictable changes, communities need to ask themselves two questions:

(1) What do we want to protect and conserve, and to keep from changing? (sustainability)

(2) What do we want to adapt and change into something new and maybe better? (resilience)

Table 3 shows the basic indicators that we have been using in our research in rural Taiwan tourism communities. This is another slide that I have been using recently to more clearly explain the conceptual differences between sustainability and resilience. It is based on the two questions, (1) and (2), listed above. For each area there is an indicator that reflects sustainability (conservation, restoration and change avoidance) and one that reflects resilience (adaptation and innovation). Neither is inherently better than the other - they are just different policy choices.

In general, the better a community is able conserve (or sometimes recover) that which they cherish, the more successful they are at sustainability. Similarly, the better a community is able to adapt and change in areas that they want to see development, the better they are at resilience. On the other hand, the inability to protect a community resource against change, or being forced by external forces to change something in directions deemed undesirable by a community, reflects disempowered states of sustainability and of resilience, respectively.

Table 3. Resilience & Sustainability Indicators

​1. Local Government Budgeting • Building Community Capacity for Change (Resilience) • • Conserving Community Resources (Sustainability) •

​Updated 22 November 2015New text added: It can also be confused by authors who use a more simplified dictionary definition of resilience. This happens because everything conceivable, from a river to a city and from a sound to an idea, exhibits some degree of resilience. Things exist and they end; and in simplistic terms, measurements of the time between their coming into existence and their eventual ending reflects their resilience. Thus, an researcher could say that because a religion has been in existence for over 2000 years, it is resilient. On the other hand, one could also say it is sustainable, which leads to the second reason for the confusion between sustainability and resilience. Old text removed: While it can also be confused by authors who use a more simplified dictionary definition of resilience, that tends to be less of an issue (so far) in resilience scholarship.​Updated 4 December 2015Added reference and link to "Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey" and "Multiple interpretations of resilience in disaster risk management"

Updated 3 July 2016Moved from Tourism Place blog to the Blog of the Collaborative for Sustainable and Resilience Communities